coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir.
5.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation.
6.  On the same day, the applicant was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorist branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, the applicant admitted to his involvement in the illegal armed organisation.
7.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor and the judge, again in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant admitted that he had participated in certain activities of the illegal armed organisation.
8.  On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer requested to visit him; however this request was rejected by the Public Prosecutor.
9.  On 2 May 2000 the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be sentenced and convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
10.  On 5 December 2000 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. In its decision, the court attached particular importance to the applicant’s statements to the investigating judge.
11.  On 25 December 2000 the applicant appealed. On an unspecified date, the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion. This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative. On 11 June 2001, the Court of Cassation, upholding the reasoning and assessment of the Izmir State Security Court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 22 September 1996 the applicant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was taken into custody by policemen from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). In her police statements dated 6 and 8 October 1996 respectively, the applicant accepted the charges against her. During her interrogations, the applicant did not have the assistance of a lawyer.
6.  On 22 October 1996 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and subsequently before the investigating judge. She was interrogated in the absence of a lawyer by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively and denied the allegations against her. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the judge ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand. The applicant was then allowed to have access to a lawyer.
7.  By an indictment dated 3 December 1996, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and nine other accused. He accused the applicant of being a member of the PKK and accordingly called for her to be sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
8.  The trial commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the subsequent twenty hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of evidence.
9.  On 2 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court concluded that the applicant was a member of the PKK and accordingly sentenced her to eight years and four months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
10.  On 20 December 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
11.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant was released pending trial.
12.  On 9 April 2002 the court rendered its judgment and sentenced the applicant to eight years and four months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In convicting the applicant, the State Security Court had particular regard to the applicant’s police statements.
13.  On 7 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tirana.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with the Lushnja Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”), seeking to have the property of her deceased relative, confiscated in 1949, returned to her.
8.  On 22 April 1994 the Commission upheld the application and recognised the applicant’s property rights over two villas and a three-storey building measuring 1,380 sq. m and a plot of land measuring 540 sq. m.
9.  As regards the three-storey building and one of the villas, the Commission decided to return the property to the applicant. As regards the other villa, the Commission recognised the applicant’s co-ownership with its existing occupier. However, as it was impossible to allocate the original plot of land measuring 540 sq. m to the applicant, the Commission ordered the payment of compensation in State bonds equivalent to the value of the plot. Lastly, the Commission ordered the authorities to enforce the decision.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a civil action with the Lushnjë District Court challenging the part of the Commission’s decision that recognised one of the villas as being jointly owned and claiming full ownership thereof. Notice of the proceedings was given to the existing occupier and the Commission.
11.  On 23 January 1996 the court upheld the applicant’s civil claim and granted her full ownership of the villa. The court did not rule on the part of the Commission’s decision relating to the compensation issue.
12.  On 10 May 1996, following an appeal by the defendant party, the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. As no appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court, that decision became final and binding.
13.  On an unspecified date, following the enforcement of the court’s decision, the applicant took possession of the properties allocated to her, that is to say, the two villas and the three-storey building.
14.  In 2004, as no State bonds had been issued, the applicant wrote a letter to the Commission seeking a solution to the compensation issue in respect of his plot of land measuring 540 sq. m. She did not receive a reply to her letter.
15.  To date, the authorities have not provided compensation in respect of the plot of land measuring 540 sq. m, in spite of the Commission’s decision.
4.  The applicants were born in 1985 and live in Diyarbakır. At the time of the events they were sixteen years old.
5.  According to the official documents, in connection with an ongoing investigation against an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the police received information that the second applicant, a suspected member of that organisation, had arrived from the rural area in order to conduct activities in cities on behalf of the organisation. Having established the second applicant’s address in Diyarbakır, the police conducted a search of the premises, on 1 December 2001 at 1.20 a.m., and arrested the second applicant. The other applicants, who were also present during the house during the search, were similarly arrested and taken into police custody in order to establish any link they might have had with the organisation. The police did not find anything illegal or incriminating during the search.
6.  On the same night, at around 2.15 a.m., the applicants were taken for a medical examination at the Diyarbakır State Hospital.
7.  According to the custody records, the police informed the fathers’ of first and the third applicant and the second applicant’s mother of their arrest and detention.
8.  On 2 December 2001 the police searched the house of the first applicant but did not find anything illegal or incriminating.
9.  Upon the request of the police, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor (hereinafter the prosecutor) extended the applicants’ detention for two days on 3 December 2001.
10.  On the same day, the applicants were questioned by the police. Since they were accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, they could not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer despite their age.
11.  The custody records noted the end of the applicants’ custody at 10.40 a.m. on 4 December 2001.
12.  Later the same day, the applicants were taken for a medical examination at the Bağlar Medical Clinic.
13.  Afterwards, the applicants were first brought before the prosecutor and then to the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter the SSC). The latter, after having heard them, ordered their remand in custody.
14.  On 5 December 2001 the prosecutor, relying mainly on the basis of the applicants’ statements obtained during the pre-trial investigation, filed a bill of indictment with the SCC accusing the second applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants of aiding and abetting that organisation. The charges were brought under Articles 168 and 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code respectively.
15.  At the first hearing held before the SSC, on 5 February 2002, the applicants were released pending trial.
16.  No further documentation has been submitted by the parties regarding these proceedings before the SSC.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving his prison sentence in the Gaziantep H-type Prison.
5.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant was taken into custody during a military operation carried out by the Turkish armed forces on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The applicant was detained at a gendarme station, where he was questioned in the absence of a lawyer and his detailed statement was recorded verbatim.
6.  In the statement the applicant was quoted as having said that he had joined the PKK on 13 February 1995 and that he had carried out a number of armed activities since that date.
7.  On 6 May 1998 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. When questioned by the prosecutor and the judge, in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the statement he had made at the gendarme station, and repeated that he had carried out a number of armed activities. The applicant was placed in detention on remand on the order of the investigating judge.
8.  On 15 June 1998 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment, charging the applicant with the offence of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. He sought the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
9.  The trial of the applicant and his seven co-defendants began on 20 August 1998 before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the course of the trial, the applicant was represented by his lawyer. He informed the court that he had joined the PKK in 1995 and had received military training. He further admitted to certain charges brought against him. The applicant also stated, during the hearings, that he had been forced to put his thumbprint on the statement taken from him at the gendarme station.
10.  On 28 November 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence. The court found it established, on the basis of, inter alia, the statements taken from the applicant after his arrest and the testimony given by him during the trial, that he had carried out a number of illegal activities and had been involved in the killing and kidnapping of a number of village guards.
11.  On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
7.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1965, 1980, 1961 and 1980 respectively and live in Chişinău. They are members of “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a Chişinău-based non-governmental organisation specialised in the representation of applicants before the Court.
8.  According to the applicants, after the coming to power of the Communist Party the number of violations of human rights increased considerably. In that context their organisation was created, whose sole purpose was the protection of human rights by assisting persons who sought to introduce applications with the European Court of Human Rights.
9.  As a result, the applicants considered that they had caused the Government serious harm in terms of damage to their image and financial loss as a result of the findings of violation in cases they had helped to bring before this Court.
10.  The applicants maintained that they ran a serious risk of having their telephones tapped as a result of their activity, due to the state of the legislation in force. They did not claim to have been victims of any specific interception of their communications, whether by telephone or post, and they had not instituted any domestic proceedings in that respect.
11.  The Government disputed the allegation concerning the increase of the number of violations of human rights after the Communist Party had won the elections.
12.  On 17 January 2008 one of the applicants wrote to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and asked for statistical information concerning, inter alia, the number of applications lodged by the investigating bodies with courts for interception of telephone conversations and the number of successful and unsuccessful applications.
13.  In a letter of 6 February 2008 the Head of the President's Office of the Supreme Court of Justice replied that in 2005 of a total of 2,609 applications for interception lodged, 98.81% had been successful; in 2006 of the 1,931 applications lodged, 97.93% had been successful; and in 2007 of the 2,372 applications lodged, 99.24% had been successful.
6.  The first applicant, Mr Mihaylov, was born in 1926. He passed away in 2003. His heirs, the second applicant, Mrs Mihaylova, and her two children, Ms Valentina Mihaylova and Mr Stefan Mihaylov, stated that they wished to pursue the application. The applicants were born respectively in 1931, 1956 and 1962, and live in Sofia.
7.  In 1985 the first two applicants purchased from the Sofia municipality a three-room apartment of 88 square metres. The apartment was located in a three-storey building in the centre of Sofia. It had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and for several years afterwards.
8.  Several months after the adoption of the Restitution Law in 1992, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the first and second applicants, seeking the nullification of the applicants’ title and the restoration of their property..
9.  The proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 13 December 2002. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and ordered them to vacate the apartment. This finding was based on two grounds: 1) the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for construction of buildings of more than three storeys, according to the building plan of Sofia, and the relevant legislation prohibited the sale of apartments in three-storey buildings located in such areas; and 2) the 1985 sale contract had not been signed by the mayor but by his deputy.
10.  The applicants vacated the apartment on 30 December 2002.
11.  After the final judgment in their case, the applicants had the opportunity to obtain compensation from the State in the form of compensation bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.
12.  In May 2006 the second applicant was granted the tenancy of a one-room municipal apartment.
7.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia.
8.  In 1972 the applicants purchased from the Sofia municipality a three‑room apartment of seventy-four square metres located in a three‑storey building in the centre of the city. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following several years.
9.  In November 1992 some of the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
10.  As the proceedings had not been brought by all heirs of the pre‑nationalisation owner, they only concerned half of the applicants’ apartment. The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 May 1999.
11.  The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for construction of buildings of more than three storeys, according to the Sofia building plan of the 1970s, and the relevant legislation prohibited the sale of apartments in three-storey buildings located in such areas.
12.  In 1998 and 1999 other heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law seeking to recover the remaining half of the apartment. It appears that those proceedings were terminated as time-barred.
13.  In 1999 the applicants requested to be accommodated as tenants in a municipal dwelling. This was refused as they still owned one half of the apartment.
14.  In 2000 the applicants vacated half of the apartment, which the restored owners started to use.
15.  The applicants vacated the whole apartment in 2005 when they and the restored owners sold their respective parts of the property to a third party. The applicants received 70,000 euros (EUR). On an unspecified date the new owner demolished the building.
16.  In 1998 the applicants requested compensation bonds. On 17 April 2001 the regional governor granted the request and ordered that an expert be appointed to assess the value of the property. On 6 June 2001 the governor issued another order rectifying an obvious error in the first one. The applicants did not visit the governor’s office to receive the new order and the proceedings were apparently stayed.
17.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
18.  Shortly after the adoption of that judgment, on 8 May 2007 the Government published regulations implementing section 7 (3) of the Restitution Law (State Gazette no. 37 of May 2007). The regulations enable persons currently in possession of housing compensation bonds to obtain payment at face value from the Ministry of Finance.
6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Varna.
7.  In 1968 the applicant and her husband purchased from the State a three-room flat of approximately 76 sq. m in Varna. The flat had become State-owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.
8.  In 1993, shortly after the Restitution Law (ЗВСОНИ) was passed, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicant and her husband, seeking the nullification of their title and the restoration of the property.
9.  The applicant’s husband passed away in June 1996. She was his sole heir and the proceedings continued against her.
10.  On 29 June 1996 the Varna District Court found that the 1968 transaction had been null and void and allowed the claim. On appeal, on 25 July 1997 the Varna Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts found that the 1968 contract had been signed by a deputy to the mayor instead of the mayor (председател на изпълнителния комитет на районния народен съвет) and that the file did not contain the requisite approval by the Minister of Architecture and Building Planning. The courts also found that the price of the flat, 5,352 levs, had not been determined correctly by the administration (the judicial expert ordered by the court in the 1996 proceedings estimated the price in 1968 at 5,725 levs).
11.  In 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings, stating that she had not been duly summoned for the Regional Court’s hearing held on 2 July 1997. In a judgment of 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request for reopening.
12.  In 2000 it became possible for persons in the applicant’s situation to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicant did not avail herself of that opportunity within the relevant three-month time-limit. She applied for bonds in June 2007 but was informed by a letter of 5 July 2007 from the Varna Regional Governor that she was not entitled to compensation in the form of bonds.
13.  The applicant did not leave the property voluntarily. In 1998 the restored owners instituted enforcement proceedings. The applicant was evicted on 16 August 2006.
14.  On 15 November 2006 the applicant was granted the tenancy of a two-room municipal flat in Varna.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Stronie Śląskie.
6.  On 3 August 1997 the Law of 11 April 1997 on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”) entered into force.
7.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant, a candidate for the European Parliament, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services. He was subsequently elected as a Member of the European Parliament.
8.  On 9 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had cooperated with the secret services.
9.  On 17 February 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration since he had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the State’s secret services. The court established that the applicant had met on probably two occasions in 1973 with agents of the secret services and had agreed to help them as a consultant.
10.  The applicant appealed against the decision. He submitted that he had never collaborated with the secret services and the meeting in question had been in connection with the preparation of an article. The applicant also referred to his subsequent activity in the “Solidarność” movement for which he had been persecuted and detained by the communist authorities. Subsequently, he was allowed to leave Poland and between 1985 and 1994 he was a deputy of the Polish Section of Radio Free Europe in Munich.
11.  On 6 June 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment.
12.  On 1 February 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. That decision was notified to the applicant on 8 March 2007.